|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
myth-accusation of KJB-1611 having 'strain out'
Hi Folks,
Now we go to an extra level of confusion and absurdity from the anti-KJB folks. The claim that the 1611 had 'strain out' and it was changed to 'strain at'. As mentioned earlier it is trivially easy to see that this is a false accusation. 1) KJB-1611 is online http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1246 2) KJB-1611 Reprint Editions are available: Thomas Nelson http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-161.../dp/0840700415 Oxford 1833 http://www.archive.org/stream/holybi...ctre00oxfouoft 3) Many references state plainly that the KJB editions have been consistent - even back to Adam Clarke KJB-1611 Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Some web-sites and threads think that the King James Bible had "strain out" originally and then changed it to "strain at". This super-blunder would be mostly a quirk of history if the Internet hasn't revived it some and top 'scholar' Daniel Wallace did not express the idea in his 2006 paper. Why do these men want to believe so many lies about one verse ? ======================================== Web-Sites with 1611 Blunder Here are web-sites. Note the last of the three gives the source and the first also mentions using the Jack Pearl Lewis book. http://www.asapnet.net/remnant/page5isKJVonly.htm - Good News Messengers Church - Milwaukee http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/15.html - Anti-KJB pages http://cranfordville.com/Studies/HisBibleLec4.html Lecturer on Bible history - Lorin Cranford at Gardner-Webb University in Boiling Springs, NC Another printing error continued in modern printings and defying explanation is "strain at a gnat" (Matt. 23:24) where the 1611 version correctly had "strain out a gnat." (Lewis, pp. 37-38) ======================================== So the history of this extra aspect of the 'myth-accusation' of a misprint seems to start here: Below is a review of the current status, if you find more share away. ======================================== International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - First Blunder on 1611 http://books.google.com/books?id=HX4PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2864 The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia ISBE - James Orr (1913) "the first ed of AV read the same as RV, but in the later edd a misprint converted 'strain out' into 'strain at' " This ISBE blunder is still carried, uncorrected, on various websites, including the NetBible site of Daniel Wallace. Other writings of 1915-1980 appear to have recognized this as a blunder as it is not seen to be repeated for a long time. And it was removed in a later ISBE. : Later, by 1995, probably before the ISBE had removed the more overt bliunder, to remain with simply the common blunder: "typographical error crept in" ======================================== International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913) - Internet Lemmings http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Strain - NetBible http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8432 - Studylight http://cf.blueletterbible.org/isbe/isbe.cfm?id=8438 - BlueLetterBible http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/is...i?number=T8432 - SearchGodsWord http://www.biblemaster.com/bible/enc...sp?number=8432 - BibleMaster Notice that they updated the spelling, expanded the names (e.g. RV = Revised Version) while maintaining the blunder. ! ======================================== Two Modern Books with Error One Bible Only ? uses 'English Bible ..' blunder http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-.../dp/B000XBMU7M Jack Pearl Lewis - The English Bible .. (1981) - (based on three references; would like to check exact wording) One Bible Only ? (2001) - Roy Beacham & Kevin Bauder http://tinyurl.com/5s3ctd "the 1611 edition had ... 'strain out a gnat' .. error ... was introduced at a later date" (Lewis, The English Bible, p. 38) p. 101 http://tinyurl.com/5ffmp8 "uncorrected misprint.. mistakes in copying and printing the Bible.. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that should be changed ?" p.90 Beacham-Bauder's One Bible Only ? played every angle. Apparently the Lewis book was done with spotty research and understanding. Michael Marlowe, himself very much textcrit modern version oriented, says: "In his polemic against adherents of the venerable KJV, Lewis gives an entirely false impression of the number of significant differences between editions of the KJV, which really amount to very few, if indeed any, although many changes of spelling and punctuation have naturally been made in the course of its long history -- yet these cannot be compared to the significant alterations often quietly made in printings of the modern versions. He often fails to take notice of the Greek text proper to the KJV, and so criticizes the version for what he believes to be a faulty translation in places where it presents a perfectly accurate translation of the Received Text. In other places his unjust criticisms merely show that he is not familiar with the Elizabethan idiom of the KJV." Apparently Lewis set the stage for a lot of the logically weak argumentation that we see today in the Internet discussions. ======================================== Big Chief Modern Blunderer - Daniel Wallace Th.M., Ph.D. This was covered before, so we have mostly the threads, and the 1611 quote below. http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=45 one very definite error -> the modern version accusations http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379&page=8 posts 79 & 80 'Misprint' Quote Festival - prior to 1611 - and 1600s http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197 Changes to the KJV since 1611:An Illustration - Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio) Note: when Wallace refers to 'scribal corruptions' he is giving his own version of and spin on the 'misprint' and 'typographical error' canard. "one very definite error in translation .. even KJV advocates would admit (sic)." "this illustrates ... that scribal corruptions can and do take place" "strain out .. I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording" Ironically, Wallace is so obtuse and confused in his animus to the authority and purity of the Holy Bible (King James, Authorised Version) that he can offer up two totally false and essentially contradictory theories at the same time. In the Wallace view the KJB-1611 was done fine and right ('strain out' per Dr. Wallace) and then every later edition had a printer's error and nobody even noticed that they had changed the verse from the 1611. And Daniel Wallace, offering this ludicrous theory to modern scholarship, never even checked an easily available King James Bible 1611 edition ! This is the state of textual apostate scholarship, just wing it with an un-prayer if you try to smear the King James Bible. For those who try to follow and believe the false Daniel Wallace theories, people won't come to you only to sell bridges. They will want to sell you whole towns and cities. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Shalom, Steven |
caveat emptor
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
David Daniels responds to 1611 myth-accusastion
Hi Folks,
There is some more to go into about the blunderama from Daniel Wallace. Wallace invested a big emotional and tactical part of his anti-KJB writings on the multi-lies about Matthew 23:24 being a 'scribal corruption' or being originally in the KJB 1611. In a sense that was the Wallace 'closer' after a bunch of weak arguments. After all, if there is only a printer blunder, how can the King James Bible today be defended ? As emphasized also in the 'One Bible Only ?' book. =============================== However first a little acknowledgment of the one article that deals directly with the KJB-1611 part of the lie. Someone must have read Wallace or another and asked: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/21centurykjv.asp Why does the original 1611 version have "strain out a gnat" and modern King James versions misprint that by saying "strain at a gnat" When will this error be corrected? David Daniels response: You were lied to about Matthew 23:24. It is a lie spread by anti-King James people. ... I have a letter-for-letter exact reproduction ... of the 1611 King Jame Bible, first printing by Robert Barker, the King's own printer. Here's exactly what it says: 24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. There you have it. The King James NEVER said "strain out a gnat." It ALWAYS said, in proper English, "strain at a gnat." The modern printings that say "strain at a gnat" are correct. ... The Cambridge King James Bible is an exact replica, with updated spelling and all printing errors removed, of precisely what the translators handed Robert Barker to be printed! ... In short, there is no error, thus nothing to be corrected, in accurate printings of the King James Bible like the Cambridge. I come from a totally anti-KJV training in Bible college and seminary. It has taken years of research to dispel the stories and lies and doubts placed on God's preserved words, the King James Bible. Shalom, Steven |
Daniel Wallace, MDW
Hi Folks,
Daniel Wallace tries hard to use 'strain as a gnat' as his closer, but it is a blown save. Here is yet a third article, from a talk he gave in 2001, where he tries the same Wallace trickery as we saw above, with some new spins. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1823#P65_17169 Part II: The Reign of the King James(The Era of Elegance) by: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio) ==================== Another Daniel Wallace Self-Contradiction "I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called ‘first’ edition of the KJV surviving today." So what is the Daniel Wallace excuse for the untruth about the 1611 text that he gave to readers elsewhere ? "strain out .. I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording" Apparently blind reader Wallace decides the King James Bible 1611-text from unknown and ethereal "original autographs". ===================== Daniel Wallace Sleight-of-hand Attempt to Claim Printer Errors Daniel Wallace tries hard to pretend that 'strain at a gnat' (& Jesus in Hebrews 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) were 'printer errors'. Wallace writes in the typical deceptive style of the alexandrian cultist, putting a circle of printer error discussions around the excellent King James Bible translation decisions that were not remotely, in any way, shape or form, printer errors. Watch the deception - I will put the Wallace quotes in order - A,B,C (A) printer’s errors were bound to creep in ... (long list of various printer errors over 350 years) ... occasional but bizarre printing mistakes (B) ... several errors in the 1611 edition have never been changed. ... Acts 7.45 and Heb 4.8 .... Matt 23.24 the Authorized Version reads, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (C) In spite of all the printing problems of the KJV Note the polished deception . By encircling B with A and C, and saying 'several errors' the deceptive Daniel Wallace pretends that the translation issues on the three verses noted are printer errors. A total deception, craftiness, an alexandrian cultist technique. Note also that Wallace is aware that he is deceiving. He puts in the following footnote: * It is possible that ‘strain at’ in 1611 English meant ‘strain out’ (so OED). However, it was a rarer meaning even then and certainly should have been changed in subsequent revisions... And the note itself is full of even more deception. Wallace leaves out that the OED says specifically that it is not a mistranslation and he leaves out that the OED specifically gives multiple usage references. He also fabricates that the OED places 'strain at' as simply a 1611 version of 'strain out'. Amazing. Wallace also omits the critical Constantin Hopf material, referenced in BDAG. Has he spoken and written about this for years and he never even checked BDAG and the scholarly literature ? And we have shown on this thread that 'strain at a gnat' was by no means rare, that it was a very well accepted and understood usage, even way beyond the excellent and compelling and conclusive references given by OED and Constantin Hopf. Thus Daniel Wallace is nothing but consistent. He gets every single fact twisted into an attempt to smear the King James Bible with the big lie of a 'misprint' or 'printer's error'. Then to top off this blunderfest of deceit, The Wallace footnote goes on : "Inexplicably, this error has remained in the text of most printings of the KJV. " After acknowledging defacto from OED that it was not a printing error, Wallace, like a dog returning to vomit, goes back to the false claim that it was a printer's error. Quite obviously, only someone who is falsely claiming 'strain at' was a printer's error or a misprint or a 'scribal corruption' (a Wallace classic deceptive phrase for this issue) could claim that the retention is 'inexplicable'. (See Minton, Making, 350, for exceptions.) As we saw above, the exceptions are essentially irrelevant. Here is what we know (I will check Minton as well). 140+ years with every edition perfectly agreeing. Then one USA printer around the 1750's some editions had 'strain out'. Then back to agreement for dozens or more editions over the next century plus. Then you have to move ahead to Scrivener, who was influenced by the big lie of a 'printer's error'. Yet that was before OED, Hopf and the new material had totally destroyed that insipid accusation. Daniel Wallace on this topic truly should put M.D.W after his name .. Master of Deceptive Writing. Shalom, Steven PS. Scrivener goofed as well in modifying, as even David Norton indicates. Even with Norton not at all knowing the huge depth of evidences for early usages of 'strain at a gnat' and coming at the issues with his own baggage. Before Scrivener writers like Alford, Paige, Parkhurst and Jacobus did not buy into the misprint canard. |
'KJB' editions with 'strain out'
Hi Folks,
Quote:
1754 eight volume edition issued in London by T. Baskett 1833 Noah Webster revision 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by F.H.A. Scrivener And no more. King James Bible defenders do not consider the Noah Webster revision a King James Bible as it incorporates hundreds of his peculiar revisions, such as changing the text to avoid indelicate words. It might be comparable to the KJ/21-Millenium versions (not considered a King James Bible edition by KJB defenders) although some of its changes would be more radical. The Douel editions (KJ/21, Millenium and whatever else they have) and the Jay Green editions (e.g. MKJV) make the error of changing the text. My conjecture is that they see the 'misprint' lie in a lot of places and want to look hip. Another reason to avoid all those copyrighted, deficient almost-but-not-quite King James Bibles, where they make changes that are simply unnecessary and wrong. And with Webster we saw how he was one of the first to raise the 'misprint' canard. I referenced Baskett above as USA. This is complex because there were some editions that may have said London even though they were USA printed and to be sure either way more checking would have to be done. There may have a few Baskett editions in that period with "strain out". I have yet to see anything in writing at the time about why the editions were off, nor have I seen whether or not they made other changes. Perhaps 'strain out' in the Baskett editions was a typographical error :). Maybe not likely, but far more likely than the 1611, where the probability of a misprint is effectively 0. Shalom, Steven |
Zondervan perputuates Scrivener error
Hi Folks,
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Cam...aragraph_Bible The original Cambridge Paragraph Bible Cambridge Paragraph Bible ... the KJV text in the standard reference work in New Testament Octapla edited by Luther Weigle, chairman of the translation committee that produced the Revised Standard Version. Ok, not particularly significant, though worthy of note since we are trying to be complete. Note the following: ... recently, the publisher Zondervan has attempted a revival of Scrivener's text by conforming all its newer editions of the KJV to it, such as its Zondervan KJV Study Bible. So a newer Zondervan edition, at least the 'KJV Study Bible', will have the improper 'strain out'. I confirmed this in a 2002 edition, which has a lot of material lauding the NAS and NIV Study Bible origins, and the people involved in those editions. A good indication why the best King James Bible publishers are those that understand and appreciate the purity and perfection of the King James Bible and work only with the King James Bible text. With a tip of the cap to the work done on the Pure Cambridge Edition to bring these questions to focus and clarity. Shalom, Steven |
Ron Minton - Daniel Wallace scholarly source
Hi Folks,
As pointed out Daniel Wallace makes no mention of the extremely pertinent scholarly paper by Constantin Hopf in any of the three articles we have examined where he makes a variety of errors about 'strain at a gnat'. For the relatively minor issue of KJB editions with 'strain out' Daniel Wallace referenced: Quote:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1791 Ron Minton, The Making and Preservation of the Bible (n.p.; November, 2000) With n.p. being non-published, a draft received. We saw that the information was short, only three items over hundreds of years of publishing, and that may have been why Daniel Wallace used a footnote reference to an unpublished work rather than listing the paltry 3 editions. Thus leaving the reader with the impression that there may be a wide divide in the King James Bibles, maybe Ron Minton lists 100 editions ! Also the information was only partially correct, while the Baskett and Scrivener editions can legitimately be considered as (wayward) King James Bible editions that had 'strain out' the Noah Webster revision would be no more a King James Bible edition than the modern revisions and 'updates' © by Douel, Nelson and Sovereign Grace Publishers (Jay Green) with names like KJ21, KJ3, MKJV, NKJV etc. These editions are tainted by the need to make changes to justify their existence and their ©. Thus, considering the commonly accepted myth-accusation, they will want to look good by not perpetuating a 'misprint' :) . Error begets error. The myth-accusation influences the versions of the misguided 'reformers' of the pure Bible text. At least Noah Webster thought he had a basis for his attempts to change the pure King James Bible text (e.g. he actually believed the text was indelicate) rather than kowtowing to misinformation and the lure of lucre as is common today. While Webster was very wrong, at least he seems to have acted consistently to his understandings. He was more of a myth-maker than a myth-kowtowerr. (Note that his false misprint accusation was only presented as a possibility, e.g. "evidently an oversight or misprint". Shalom, Steven |
the original 1611 King James Bible version
Quote:
Study Light can be found here: http://www.studylight.org/ Just type in Matthew 23:24 and scroll down to "early versions", then click on KJV 1611 edition. There it is. Will K |
you guys are straining at a lot of material and what a good job for the defense of the KJV.
I posted in another post that I strain at many things,I strain at righteousness, I strain at understainding the Bible, the KJV translaters were correct in using the words strained at. Jesus was showing that the Pharisee's were mentally focused on the wrong things to strain at. the words left as they are are very important to us today for we can strain at many things but we need to make sure our straining at is of correct priority. Many don't strain at the study of God's word they spend more time straining at small issues of of the word, Life and godliness and dont focus of the large more wieghtier matters of spirituality. |
misprint only in the original autographs !
Hi Folks,
Quote:
The Wallace theory: a misprint only in the original autographs ! Shalom, Steven |
four 1800s commentators, Burkitt, Wicks, Spurgeon, Edersheim
Hi Folks,
Having concentrated on the top pistol-slinger sophisticated and subtile deceiver, Daniel Wallace, and considering others who have tried to propagate the misprint myths, in the last few posts - we will move now to another aspect. First, something simple, some nice Commentaries in the 1800's, that used 'strain at' without hesitation or concern or special discussion and with exposition. The 1800s was a time of the heavy anti-KJB propaganda, especially for the strain at 'misprints', especially after Richard Richard Chevenix Trench weighed in on 'strain at' around 1850. By 1945 all of this was refuted, however the anti-KJB folks simply parroted the earlier false assertion anyway.) Now to concentrate on generally more edifying writers :) . ============================== Commentary - 1800's - 'strain at a gnat' Exposition http://books.google.com/books?id=E1EHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150 Expository notes, with practical observations, on the New Testament - William Burkitt (1832) A proverbial expression, intimating, that some persons pretend great scrupulosity about small matters, and none, or but little, about duties of the greatest moment p. 117 scruple a ceremony,but make no conscience of murder and perjury p. 150 http://books.google.com/books?id=whIEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54 Scriptural musings By Augusta M. Wicks (1845) ".. above all a great multitude of evil-doers who 'strain at a knat, and swallow a camel,' and who are ever watching the professing christian to find fault with him, as the Pharisees who watched our Saviour p.54 http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0237.htm Hypocrisy - Charles Spurgeon (1859) Mark you, my dear friends, I like you to strain at the gnats; I have no objection to that at all *only do not swallow the camel afterwards. Be as particular as you like about right and wrong. If you think a thing is a little wrong, it is wrong to you. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." If you cannot do it, believing yourself to be right in not doing it, though another man could do it and do right, yet to you it would not be right. Strain the gnats; they are not good things in your wines, strain them out; it is well to get rid of them; but then do not open your mouth and swallow a camel afterwards, for if you do that, you will give no evidence that you are a child of God, but prove that you are a damnable hypocrite. http://books.google.com/books?id=VJU...A412&lpg=PA412 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - Alfred Edersheim (1883) The fifth Woe referred to one of the best-known and strangest Jewish ordinances, which extended the mosaic law of tithing, in most burdensome minuteness, even to the smallest products of the soil that were esculent and could be preserved, such as anise. Of these, according to some, not only the seeds, but, in certain cases, even the leaves and stalks, had to be tithed. And this, together with grievous omission of the weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy, and faith. Truly, this was 'to strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!' We remember that this conscientiousness in tithing constituted one of the characteristics of the Pharisees; but we could scarcely be prepared for such an instance of it, as when the Talmud gravely assures us that the ass of a certain Rabbi had been so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken! And experience, not only in the past but in the present, has only too plainly shown, that a religious zeal which expends itself on trifles has not room nor strength left for the weightier matters of the Law. One of the pleasant aspects of a study like the one in process is that we end up finding and reading materials from earlier days, from men quite unlike the cookie-cutter pablum of the modern seminaries, from men who were far less likely to strain at gnats as is the modern norm. Modern "commentaries" vary, however they tend to range from superficial nothings to doctrinal ax-grinders to technocrat gibberish. In the Johannine Comma research and studies I discovered how fine it is to look at earlier writings, and this has led to a comfort with, and thankfulness for, so much of the earlier writings by men of faith and belief in the scriptures as the word of God. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
First, here is another Commentary, about 1920. http://www.biblecentre.org/commentar...athew_exp2.htm The Gospel of Matthew - An Exposition Arno Clement Gaebelein (c. 1920) "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and ye have left aside the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith; these ye ought to have done and not have left those aside. Blind guides who strain out the gnat, but drink down the camel" (verses 23-24). Their self-righteousness and piety consisted in being very scrupulous about minor things, while the important matters were completely ignored by them. They strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. It is not different today. The little unessential things in religious practices are unduly magnified, while the important matters are ignored.ses 25-33). Please feel free to post here commentaries or extracts you have that are interesting, even if they do not touch directly on the misprint issue, or even the translation/context/idiom views. This thread is designed to be an all-purpose resource, an emphasis on refuting the 200-year-old anti-King James Bible fabrication of a 'misprint' - yet touching on other points. Now I hope to move over to some other issues and resources - still staying 'positive' .. i.e. less concern for now for the details of the busted accusers. Shalom, Steven |
'strain at a gnat' - definition & Jonathan Went article
Hi Folks,
When you ask for a 'definition' of an idiom, you can get a wide variety of response. We noticed above how Daniel Wallace extracted a little remark from OED (Oxford English Dictionary) about ' 'to make violent effort' only as a diversion, a cover, from the fact that the OED refuted his main contention, a supposed printer's error or scribal corruption. On another forum another similar definition was posted : Strain (at) means 'To exert much effort or energy' Now those of us who know English and have actually lived in the USA (oops, do USA folks know English ?) or England or Australia or another English-speaking country will get a :) out of such postings. (This last one was by an apparent non-native-English-poster who scoured the Internet for a definition to try to bludgeon the word of God. Keep in mind that there are excellent English-speakers all over the world, I have been impressed particularly by the Dutch and Danish skill in the language, so this is not only for English-primary folks.) Anyway, many of us have likely used the phrase 'strain at a gnat' maybe 1000 times, or at least 100, without any such connotation of violent effort. There is no there there. A simple and far more accurate definition, although any definition will not cover full semantic range, would be this one : Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) gnat *Idiom strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, to fuss about trifles while ignoring more serious matters. Simple, hits the basics. Now we note a couple of things. One is that looking at Matthew 23, this is a far better contextual fit that removing the concept of fuss, and simply talking of 'strain out' - which may be defined as a small (proper, cleansing) matter. (Note: anyone who feels they would like to expand this thought, please go right ahead !) This contextual issue is the simplest one, imho, that shows the superiority of 'strain at" to 'strain out' (an early translation attempt that has multiple problems). 'Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel..' .. really zings the context of the rebuke of Jesus to the Pharisees. 'At' is the solid contextual translation, the proper preposition used where the technical grammar allows many choices (with 'out' quite dubious) yet only one choice really captures the sense and context. Which is why 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' has become a dynamic staple of English literature and usage for hundreds of years (a history deserving its own review). This contextual issue is touched on here and there, however it deserves its own honored place in the discussion table. I will leave you with a couple of notes directly related. Jonathan Went wrote a good article where he quoted Albert Barnes (who missed all this in falling for the misprint canard). http://www.studylight.org/col/ds/arc...17&sn=101&pn=7 Swallow a Camel? (Matthew 23:24) - Jonathan Went (2005) the Arabs have the proverb: "He eats an elephant, and is suffocated with a gnat", i.e., "he is troubled with little things, but pays no attention to great matters" (Barnes on Matthew 23:24). Note how well this Middle Eastern proverb matches well our definition in use above ! Jonathan Went is also an example of a modern writer who wrote like he knew that the gig was up for the misprint accusation (which he did not even mention, despite it being given by so many Wallace-type 'scholars'). Even without knowing the incredible full range of early English (pre-1611) usage that we now have available. (Over 15 at last count, including powerful translations of Calvin and two King James Bible translators and Biblical, political, secular and theater usages ! With the emphasis on Biblical sermons and writings.). "According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable under the entry for 'Strain', "Robert Greene in Mamillia (1583) speaks of 'straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant'." The AV of Matthew 23:24 has "strain at a gnat" which was familiar English at the time for "strain out". Greene was an intelligent irreverent Norwich born Elizabethan writer who in this work used classical aphorisms and zoological similes to describe romantic love. This article makes a nice point, after quoting the Oxford English Dictionary information that has been available for at least 85 years. http://sluiceboxadventures.com/endti...es/Coats10.htm Straining At Gnats - Daryl R. Coats Overlooking the irony that today’s critics, in this instance, prefer an "archaic reading" to a modern reading that had "already gained currency" by 1611, I point out that the expression "strain at" appeared in print thirty-eight years before 1611 (Green’s Mamillia, 1583), and that even Shakespeare used it in Troilus and Cressida (Act III, scene iii, line 112) in 1609, two years before the first published edition of the AV. And as we know now, that does not even scratch the surface of English usage from 1540-1610. Nowy, note that the definition, and the knowledge that 'strain at a gnat' was clearly deliberate, matches well that of Charles Earle Funk, editor in chief of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary Series, that we referenced earlier, in the context of early English usages. http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html Heavens to Betsy ! & Other Curious Sayings - Charles Earl Funk (1955) to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (Charles Earle Funk was editor in chief of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary Series.) TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT. This, as are many others, is a Biblical expression. It is found in Matthew xxiii, 24-26 : “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” But the translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were already familiar with this figure of speech. It had appeared in Lectures upon Jonas by Bishop John King, first printed in 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning at gnats and swallowing downe camells.” In developing this series of articles, I had one pleasure of truly seeing a minute gnat strained after with almost Herculean gnat-straining efforts. (While the camel of the misprint lie was totally missed and fudged and attempted to be hid under a thin shawl.) One writer actually makes a big deal that the excellent Charles Funk definition and analysis above was in a book entitled 'Heavens to Betsy'. Thus giving us a most excellent modern Pharisee example. However, let our emphasis not be on gnat-strainers, let us be focused on the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with thankfulness for the pure and perfect Bible we have in our hands by the wonderful grace of God. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
To finish for the evening, here is a cute aside to show the power and strength of 'strain at a gnat ..'. Let's start where we came in, and move ahead a century. Remember Noah Webster, making a big point about the supposed need to revise the King James Bible, putting 'strain out' in his revision attempt and actively floating the misprint canard :) ? Uh, oh ! http://books.google.com/books?id=jMcVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP57 New Websterian 1912 Dictionary - Noah Webster updated by Henry Thurston Peck Among the chief is the social stigma attaching to noticeable departures from the received forms of the language; though it is singular that the fear of this stigma often capriciously strains at the gnat and swallows the camel, making those whose shall' s and will's are hopelessly at odds needlessly careful to pronounce at all as two words. Perhaps equally important is the steadying influence of earlier literature. Other influences are the example of the older members of the community, patriotism (especially in England), the fear of not being understood, the historical sense, and a general feeling for the Indecency of wanton disregard of what is established. All these tend to offset the charm of novelty. :) Shalom, Steven |
principalities - spiritual wickedness in high places
Hi Folks,
A break today from the fascinating factual and literary and historical and Biblical exegesis and translational backdrop of this verse and section in the Bible to a small thought about our calling and the opposition. Having been in correspondence with one of the main pushers of the modern misprint lie against the King James Bible, and noting the reaction, one scripture came strongly to heart. Ephesians 6::12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. There is no understanding I can see of how such a lie against the Bible came to take hold of men's minds -- except that this is a dark principality .. spiritual wickedness in high places. Men who might otherwise be sincere, who might be Christian scholars or Christian missionaries, it is amazing how their minds go into a fuzz and fog. And they grasped hold with all their strength of a lie (in this case the misprint lie). And this lie allows them to venture out to deny the authority of the word of God. And even to try, if you can imagine, to attack the word of God using their own self-deception shared with others. Having noted the hold of the misprint lie has upon the minds of some men, how they truly desire to be false accusers against the word of God, has surprised me some. Perhaps it should not, since we have been in the battle defending the Bible for a short season, yet the vehemence of accusation and the desire to embrace a clear and obvious and blatant and malignant lie brings forth another verse: Although this verse is referenced directly in relation to one sin, homosexuality, please note the fruits of a reprobate mind. Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: When presented with the simple truth that a lie propagated against the word of God is now exposed as false - one would expect, or at least hope, that Christian men would consider the evidences and nod in agreement, and even be thankful that an accusation was false. Accept the truth and happily and thankfully withdraw the accusation. Please understand, such men (in this scenario) might still, a bit strangely, still consider 'strain out a gnat' as the superior or even proper translation and 'strain at a gnat' as inferior (after all, that is what much propaganda has declared). And they might still continue in their efforts to deny the purity of the King James Bible, if that has been one of their ongoing points of contention or 'ministry'. (This is not recommended, I am simply pointing out that a person, you would think, could accept a simple truth such as that the Christian gentlemen of 1540-1611 frequently used 'strain as a gnat..' as their saying and that helps explain why it was brought into the King James Bible. While 'misprint' is a false and unreasonable and unacceptable explanation, the type of 'logic' that would have Lord Ockham not just rolling around in his grave, but doing back-flips and somersaults. And they would understand that this simple historical truth refutes fully even the conjecture, and how much more the false accusation, of a 'misprint' or a 'printer's error' or a 'typographical error' or a 'scribal corruption'.) You would just expect that in the face of truly clear simple and overwhelming evidence that the King James Bible (1611) phrasing of 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel' was simply their translational decision that the opponents would drop the 'misprint' and 'printer's error' canard with a smile and a thanks, and move on. So you would expect, among Christian men. Thus we return to the spiritual aspect of the false accusation, and the verses above. Please be aware : this lie was fabricated and embraced by : inventors of evil things And rather than thanks, on sharing the good news that our Bible does not have an uncorrected misprint, you might well be speaking to men who are : without understanding Whose real purpose in looking at the word of God is not truth, but to : debate using deceit as they are filled with an : implacable opposition to the pure word of God. An opposition one that makes them write with pride and without humility in discussing their false accusation against the word of God. In a sense their myth-accusation morphs into a railing accusation, since they have turned the truth of the purity of God's word into a lie. By the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will return to our studies tomorrow. Shalom, Steven |
Excellent comments brother,
As you have pointed out - the battle is definitely in the "spiritual" realm, and I believe that the problem (with these perverter's of God's Holy words) begins in their hearts [Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.]; and extends out to their conscience; and ultimately their minds become "evil effected" [Acts 14:2]. The following list is only a partial exposition of what happens to a persons "faculties" (man or woman – lost or saved ) when they deliberately choose to reject; or go against; or turn away from; or ignore God’s words: THE HEART
THE CONSCIENCE
THE MIND
CONCLUSION: (Rejection of God’s Words = EVIL!) |
short overview of the two lies
Hi Folks,
Amen, George. The mind, the final result of the rebellion, is a terrible thing to waste - and a travesty to put in the service of the deceiver, the accuser of the word of God. ======================== Now, some critics may say: "So many words ... :). what are you trying to do, get us to think ? We just want to accuse ! Like on TV and media - we don't want depth, that is passé " So here, for the honest seeking an overview or for the abrupt impatient with all the words. Matthew 23:24 (KJB-1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Two lies that have come from the fog of confusion against the King James Bible on 'strain at a gnat'. ============================================== Lie #1 - accusation misprint, printer's error or typographical error, scribal corruption dumb accusation at the beginning, sans evidence sustained over the years by a lemming repetition of those seeking 'revision' - a #1 weapon, even though a lie today a subtile #1 weapon of the anti-KJB crew, a lie delivered with smirks totally busted by OED (John King and Mamillia) busted more by Constantin Hopf (Calvin through Tymme/Marlorate and Paget) now busted even more (15+ early usages 1540-1610, 2 KJB translators included) Lie #2 - blunder KJB-1611 edition had 'strain out' - new anti-KJB modernist fabrication, a hopeful monster error begets error Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Note: The deceivers will always want to try to discuss the wide-ranging translation issues rather than acknowledge the above. There is a way that men of deception try to combine and confound two issues not because of sincerity, only in order to avoid the stark truth of one -- in order to avoid acknowledging their lies. They figure that by switching discussion to a more subjective playing field they can hide their objective lie. Men do not like to admit they have been deceivers. Especially 'Christian' men in 'ministry' and 'scholarship' and 'missionaries' - they are afraid it will look bad on their spiritual resume, especially if they have been attacking the word of God falsely. Now in fact the translation issues are beautiful and fascinating and clearly we love to expound on 'strain at a gnat' and believe it the proper and superior translation, proven and tested by time, giving us a rich idiom that is faithful to the Bible text and the Biblical context. However with the deceivers who have been peddling the misprint myth-accusation this discussion can only take place when the misprint lie, which has had the deadly embrace of men of deception today, had been discarded. And the most desired, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, is a true repentance by the men whose words have been lies, even if mostly lemming-lies, believing what they have heard or been taught. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
In this context, understand .. none of the deceivers ever really think they can get any mileage out of the translation issue discussion alone. They are not that dumb. In our day and age especially, where 'strain at a gnat .. ' is the idiom in use and very well understood and widely used. They are not going to look foolish trying to argue that 'strain at a gnat .. ' is a mistranslation while also acknowledging the truth of the misprint accusation as a historic blunder of huge magnitude. The translation argument without the misprint aspect is transparently weak, although some may play around with it for their own head games. And if they do blow a lot of hot air nobody will be warmed. So basically, with hardened hearts, the deceivers in the anti-KJB biz will refuse to really give up the misprint myth-accusation. Since the whole game for the deceivers has been the misprint canard (and recently the 2nd related lie, of the 1611 edition). They will use and misuse and try to not sincerely understand the the beautiful and complex contextual and translation and idiom issues (everything from neat exegesis to dueling lexicons to scouring the ancient Greek usages to technical grammatical issues right and left - those issues could go on for years with nobody 'convincing' another, their goal of diversion) for one purpose only .. to mask the 200-year-old anti-KJB lie of a 'misprint', a 'printer error' 'or 'longest living typo', the 'one definite error', the 'scribal corruption' that has been propagated aggressively and subtilely by the modernists. Even after the discovered real evidence refuted the weird no-evidence accusation ultra-conclusively. The modernist deceivers try to build position by attacking the pure word of God, and this is has been their ace card, even though a tawdry lie. Men like Doug Kutilek and Daniel Wallace and Rick Norris and Ron Minton and Robert Bowman and Roy Beachham and Kevin Bauder and William Combs and Theodore Mann and Bob Hayton and Jack Lewis and James Price .. a motley crew of amateur and semi-pro and pro anti-KJB agitators, folks propagating the misprint lie. In their animus towards the pure word of God (with its majesty and authority) they have gone to the deceiver to receive a lie and even sought themselves to be missionaries of the deception. All hitched their star to a total 'misprint' lie, the myth-accusation, about one beautiful little Bible preposition and verse and idiom, against all sense, all heart towards God, and even against the real sound scholarship. Matthew 23:24 (KJB-1611) Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Shalom, Steven |
good work Steve. my hats off to you.
I praise my Lord for people who can defend his word as mightily as you have. to God be the glory |
Very interesting and informative thread. Thank you.
Joe |
Original 1611 King James Bible
I was just looking at Matthew 23:24 in the original 1611 King James version and it reads "straine at a gnat" . Here is the link to see it:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1246 Joe |
printer's conference to fix the 'mistake'
Hi Folks,
Thanks Chette and Mighty Angel. I have learned a lot seeing how the myth against the King James Bible developed and is sustained by cornfuseniks. We saw the basic canard and then the 1611 edition add-on. Maybe now I will switch gears a bit for a few light and easy tidbits. As you can see the thread develops its own dynamic ! :). My thanks for Brandon for hosting a forum with the type of moderation and sense that allows a type of ongoing study that is rare on the internet. And where edifying responses are the norm. Here is another example like the 1611 blunder (that the first edition actually had "strain out". In that vein, an 'embellishment' to the misprint myth. http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bibl...dies/hesed.htm Hesed: Mercy or Loyalty? By Jim Myers - The Power of Tradition Matthew 23:24 has a very interesting history in the history of English translations of the Bible, especially the King James Translation: Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. The word "at" was a printer's typo that was made in the early copies of the KJV. By the time came for the printers to correct their mistake the verse had become so well known that officials decided to leave it alone - tradition prevailed over fact. The correct translation is: You blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel! Now we have an official conference of officials and printers !. Totally fabricated of course, however when the goal is to disparage the King James Bible, why let truth and facts get in the way of a good story ? Note: this is actually a fairly popular 'Biblical Heritage Center' and web site. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
Previously I have noted Oxford English Dictionary, Constantin Hopf, Jeffrey Nachimson and 'Jerome' on the BibleBaptistBoard as especially helpful in the history of rebutting the misprint myth-accusation. There are number of other heroes in this battle. A few years back Jack Moorman put together a nice rebuttal that you can see at: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbconies.htm#Strain Strain "At", or "Out" a Gnat Now Jack Moorman did not mention a lot of the information that we have available today. We did discuss one grammatical point also given by Thomas Strouse earlier. Jack Moorman does adds two other points that I have not given full emphasis. Early commentators such as Poole and Henry do not mention any problem with the passage. Poole was top commentary, about 1670, Matthew Henry was in the same lineage of early commentaries coming from the Reformation, about 1705. And you can add John Gill similarly a bit later, his commentary is on post #33. Matthew Henry gives a nice commentary, since it was earlier :). http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.Matt.xxiv.html Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible They avoided lesser sins, but committed greater (v. 24); Ye blind guides; so he had called them before (v. 16), for their corrupt teaching; here he calls them so for their corrupt living, for their example was leading as well as their doctrine; and in this also they were blind and partial; they strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained at gnats, warned people against even the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained at gnats, heaved at them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance; but they made no difficulty of those sins which, in comparison with them, were as a camel to a gnat; when they devoured widows' houses, they did indeed swallow a camel; when they gave Judas the price of innocent blood, and yet scrupled to put the returned money into the treasury (ch. xxvii. 6); when they would not go into the judgment-hall, for fear of being defiled, and yet would stand at the door, and cry out against the holy Jesus (John xviii. 28); when they quarrelled with the disciples for eating with unwashen hands, and yet, for the filling of the Corban, taught people to break the fifth commandment, they strained at gnats, or lesser things, and yet swallowed camels. It is not the scrupling of a little sin that Christ here reproves; if it be a sin, though but a gnat, it must be strained at, but the doing of that, and then swallowing a camel. In the smaller matters of the law to be superstitious, and to be profane in the greater, is the hypocrisy here condemned. Not only does Matthew Henry not mention any problem, four times he gives specific note of how Pharisees strained at gnats ! The English to him was powerful and clear and purposeful. The later Keystone Kops of grammar were not around and his comprehension and commentary was excellent. Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry specifically show us that in the critical period 1611 to 1750 not only was every edition of the King James Bible consistent, the commentators were skilled and aware of the text. The second point from Jack Moorman has to do with those in the 1800s that did maintain some sense, who, even if preferring "strain out" and even if not knowing the powerful and multi-usages from 1540-1610 (ie. the OED and Hopf refutations were future) understood that the accusation was essentially without merit. Shortly I plan to give a bit of backdrop on the men who did wear a thinking cap in the 1800s. Or at least considered the history and text sensibly. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks
And it was not just Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry in that first century that had no difficulties with 'strain at a gnat'. (Noting that we see that Matthew Henry perceptively uses 'strain at'.) The same is true for all the other commentaries in that period. David Dickson (1640) explains the proverb as meaning: "The preciseness of hypocrites is no less ridiculous than if a man should make nice to swallow a midge or a smaller matter, and not stand to swallow down a greater matter, as it were an horse or a camel. ..." Henry Hammond (1653) John Trapp (c.1660) Daniel Whitby (1703) Edward Wells (c. 1720) All simply accept and comment on the Bible phrase. Some of these may be available through the efforts of folks on the Sharper Iron forum. Now of course the misprint canard should never have come to play with 150 years of solid KJB editions. And the evidences of usages before 1610 (now varied and wide-ranging) busted this canard long ago. This is yet another additional confirmation. Seven major commentators over the next century accepted 'strain at a gnat' without scruple or concern. Matthew Henry actively used the phrase as part of his exposition. Not one single objection known in that period. (Dates above are generally approximate. Morison in the 1800s reviewed the literature.) Shalom, Steven |
1599 Geneva Study Bible
Hi Folks,
The 'strongest' non-argument or pseudo-argument given for the misprint canard was 'other early versions had 'strain out a gnat'. Well..duhh..the King James Bible translators updated the (arguably archaic and ill-fitting) 'strain out' usage to what was the common and more active and precise translation of their day. As they updated and modified and changed and improved words throughout the Bible, leading to the pure and majestic and revered and accepted Bible. (An interesting point is that the people who aggressively mention the other 1500s versions here generally will not give these Received Text NT's the time of day. They only get dug out and referenced if they can be in some way put into a comparison with the King James Bible that they think they can use in anti-KJB agiprop !.) The history of this phrase 'strain at a gnat' was clearly shown by the 15+ references of pre-1611 usage. (Even if you do not agree with the King James Bible translators decision, even if you personally would prefer one of the alternatives, 'strain at a gnat' clearly was their usage-understanding translation.) Yet even in the other versions there is one very significant evidence to turn the corner. This one slipped through our earlier lists, mainly because it is not technically 'strain at'. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible, while having the 1560 text of 'strain out a gnat' had a significant margin note. And this note seems to go back to the early 1560 Geneva. http://www.genevabible.org/files/Dai...3footnotes.htm http://www.thedcl.org/bible/gb/matthew.pdf Ye stay at that which is nothing, and let pass that which is of greater importance. Hmmm.. sounds familiar, with a similar sense :) . Well, maybe it was another of the gang of misprints ! Shalom, Steven |
We have seen two important things from the investigation presented above:
1. That the use "strain at" is elsewhere before and around 1611, and 2. That the accusation of "at" being a printer's error came about long after 1611. I would like to point out that if we concede that even one printer's error from 1611 persists unidentified or uncorrected to the present, then this opens up the door for doubt upon any word of the Scripture today. But God has had editors care for his Word, and has raised up a large tradition of acceptance of the Bible as it is. Either we maintain what we have as a gift of God, or else follow the whims of those who doubt that we have the Scripture perfectly today. |
Hebrews 10:23 - profession of faith
Hi Folks,
Once you learn the techniques of deceptive opponents of the pure King James Bible it becomes much easier to understand their game. One example, well understood, has a carry-over effect to help your spiritual antennae. Quote:
Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised) is subject to the same type of nonsense as 'strain at a gnat'. Many know there is a big translational discussion about 'faith' or 'hope' in this verse. Thomas Holland wrote about this quite nicely, so we can simply reference his page: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_heb10_23.html Hebrews 10:23 - "profession of our faith" - Thomas Holland Yet here comes the cornfusenisks. They don't just question the accuracy of the (excellent) translation, they add their whim and tinge. Scrivener - 'mere oversight of our [KJV] translators' David Norton - 'this could be a printer's error' And thus from this a modern anti-KJB, in his leading-question style of deception, asks if the translators - 'overlooked a questionable rendering?' - Rick Norris. Rick Norris even pulls out a Lancelot Andrewes section supporting the connection with hope. However he omits the following by Lancelot Andrewes: http://books.google.com/books?id=-ewDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA65 The heart by Lancelot Andrewes Heb. x.23. GRANT me always to hold fast the profession of my faith without wavering; For thou art faithful who hast promised. To this hope set before me Which of course closes the 'issue' (which never made any sense anyway). While Scrivener and Norton could try the excuse of lack of knowledge, I tend to doubt that is the case with Norris, since the Andrewes reference was easy to find and Norris was specifically looking for such references. Thus we see another truly insipid idea from Scrivener and Norton and Norris, quite similar to the 'strain at a gnat' misprint canard of many. And we see Norris trying to use it for the same purpose of Bible doubt as with the misprint myth-accusation. Shalom, Steven |
anachronistic accusation
Hi Folks,
Please understand that the 'strain at a gnat' accusation is anachronistic. We are in an age of information that fully refuted the accusation and the accusers have to feign ignorance. (Or be deliberately ignorant.) In the 1600s there was no accusation at all. In the 1700s folks did not appreciate the Bible God had given, and many went ahead to translate, Some of those translated 'strain out' or 'strain away' or 'strain off'. And Lowth grumbled grammatically. Still no accusation. In the 1800s more new translations and the clamor came for 'revision' and as part of that clamor the misprint accusation developed, sans evidence. However they did not know the early writings before 1611, only Shakespeare. The accusation was stupid, banal, yet there was a level of ignorance. The incredible labors on the English Oxford Dictionary changed that, bringing forth two refutation references, Mamillia and John King. So there was no more excuse, yet many ignored. At this time the accusation was already anachronistic, being superseded by scholarship. More so with Constantin Hopf (1944) the party was over. Two additional references, top Bible translation, before 1611. End of story. Then the Internet age, and all of a sudden we have 15 dynamic references available, every single one a refutation of the misprint accusation. Thus we can say that the accusations of Wallace and Kutilek and Norris and Combs and Mann and Minton and Glenny and Bowman and Price and Bruce and so many more is anachronistic and obsolete and long-refuted. They belong to a different age and they were tawdry, weak, dubious anti-scholarship in that earlier age. Shalom, Steven |
One Bible Only ? - article is by W. Edward G
Hi Folks,
Authorship correction. On post #49 I mentioned Roy Beacham as one of the gnat misprint accusers and on post #82 the book by Beacham & Bauder - One Bible Only ? However Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder are the editors of the book. They have been notified of the twin errors. The article at issue (which includes the 1611 first edition extra-blunder as well as the myth-accusation of a misprint) is written by W. Edward Glenny. Glenny has a Dallas Theological Seminary background so it is quite possible Glenny picked up misinformation from Daniel Wallace, who teaches at DTS. The chapter was entitled. "The New Testament Text and the Version Debate" - W. Edward Glenny Shalom, Steven |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
